Barton V. Barr

The case known as Barton v. Barr involved the possible deportation of a legal permanent resident, also known as a green card holder, from Jamaica named Barton. In his nearly 30 years as a legal permanent resident, Barton had been convicted of three crimes: aggravated assault involving a deadly weapon, and two drug offenses.

After his drug offenses, the government charged him as deportable from the United States. Barton applied for a defense available for permanent residents commonly known as “cancellation of removal.” Under this defense, legal permanent residents can avoid deportation if they

1. have never been convicted of an aggravated felony;
2. have not committed certain crimes during their first 7 years lawfully residing in the United States;
3. show they otherwise deserve mercy.

Barton committed the assault crime involving weapons during his first 7 years of lawful status. His conviction occurred after the 7 years, however. Thus, Barton argued he was eligible to cancel his removal. The government argued he was not eligible because they said the law says you are not eligible if you “commit” certain crimes.

The Supreme Court in Barton was not the first to decide this issue. Previously, the Eleventh, Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits had decided similar cases and found that if you “commit” one of the enumerated crimes, you are ineligible. The Ninth Circuit ruled that a lawful permanent resident’s commission of an offense listed in §1182(a)(2) makes the noncitizen ineligible for cancellation of removal only if that offense was one of the offenses of removal. Because five of the highest Courts in the USA were split on this issue, the Supreme Court took up the case.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Four Circuit Courts who found the plain language of the statute renders a lawful permanent resident ineligible for cancellation of removal if they commit certain crimes in the first 7 years of eligibility. They found that Congress specifically wrote this into law to try and strike the right balance between honoring the length of residency of someone in the United States and disfavoring the continued residency of violent criminals who are repeat offenders.